Yet, if you look at the previous two instances since World War II where the United States had this form of divided government, the implications for legislative productivity could not be more different.

Some are productive

The common denominators for these three Congresses are that the incumbent president is up for re-election, the Senate is controlled by the president’s party and the House of Representatives is controlled by the opposition.

One thing should be pointed out in defense of Congress’ low productivity in recent years. Congressional scholar David Mayhew has written in Politico that counting the number of enacted laws is an overly simplistic measure of productivity.

That’s because Congress has increasingly turned to so-called “omnibus” legislation, or legislative packages that sweep up lots of smaller measures into one large bill.

As a result, one important bill passed by Congress today might reasonably be considered as equal to multiple major successes for a previous Congress. For example, Mayhew argues that the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the American Taxpayers Relief Act of 2012, both of which attempted to address the budgetary crises during Obama’s first term, were important omnibus legislative accomplishments.

Nevertheless, the contrast between the two Congresses is stark.

Democrats and Republicans in the 98th Congress compromised to keep the country’s entitlement system solvent for decades. The 112th Congress, on the other hand, was dominated by partisan brinkmanship over debts and deficits that led to the downgrading of the United States’ credit rating, a key measure of the economy’s health.

Growing divisions are key

Arguably, the most important difference between the 98th and 112th Congress was the sharp increase in ideological polarization between Democrat and Republican politicians that made compromise increasingly difficult.

As a result, there was a constituency within the Democratic Party in Congress that was more ideologically predisposed to cut a deal with Reagan. It is notable, for example, that during the 98th Congress, Social Security reform included both tax increases – which Democrats liked – and cuts to benefits – which Republicans liked.

In other words, from the 98th to the 112th Congress, fewer and fewer members of the two major parties agreed on potential resolutions to the issues of the day. Compromise became harder to reach.

Given the current political climate, it is difficult to imagine a reprise of the productive 98th Congress. Would President Trump agree to increased payroll taxes to pay for Social Security and Medicare? Would Speaker Pelosi agree to benefit cuts to those programs? Unlikely.

They did a lot

It is not at all clear how the controversies surrounding President Trump will affect the behavior of the new Congress.

Probably the closest historical analogues are the various Congresses that exercised strong oversight of the president.

All three Congresses maintained reasonably high levels of legislative productivity based on the total number of enactments and the number of important bills that were passed. That happened despite the government in all three cases being divided.

How much will they do?

Does the return of divided government in the current Congress mean not much will happen over the next two years? On this question, history doesn’t provide clear guidance.

In terms of legislative productivity, the divided 98th Congress is a positive example of Democrats and Republicans cooperating to do the people’s business. But during the 112th, divided government almost crippled Congress.

Because of today’s high levels of partisan polarization, the unproductive 112th Congress probably provides the best framework for thinking about what to expect in the next two years.

Yet it is also the case that bipartisan compromise was part of Reagan’s pathway to re-election in 1984. It’s an open question whether that is a route that President Trump wants to pursue – and whether congressional Democrats are more willing to make concessions in order to chalk up legislative victories of their own than the Republicans were during the 112th.

Jeffrey D. Grynaviski is a Professor of Political Science at Wayne State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.